MoJ criticised over forging of documents submitted to employment tribunal

The request was partially successful.

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

The Guardian refers, 19 June 2019

“Perhaps most seriously, given the identity of the respondent [the MoJ], is the forgery by late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’,” the tribunal ruling states.

It also refers to “corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation” and said the MoJ’s failings go “beyond error”.

I would please like disclosing specific details about the described forgery of documents.

Yours faithfully,

P Kernman

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Justice should normally have responded promptly and by 22 July 2019.

Yours faithfully,

P Kernman

Prison Casework, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see the attached reply to your recent FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Maureen Easton

Briefing & Correspondence Team

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Prison Casework,

'....Whilst it is generally considered good practice to respond to requests submitted under a pseudonym, there may be valid reasons not to do so. For example, if the public authority suspects that the pseudonym is intended to hide the identity of the requester in order to circumvent the provisions of the FOIA.'

I can only think of one reason why a requester would want to hide his identity (in order to circumvent the FOIA) and that would be if he was hiding the fact that he was asking for his own personal information (he might otherwise be liable to a charge for a SAR).

In what way does the MoJ suspect that the pseudonym is intended to hide the identity of the requester in order to circumvent the provisions of the FOIA?

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman

P Kernman (Account suspended)

Dear Prison Casework,

Will you please answer my query.

Yours sincerely,

P Kernman